Nalini challenges Sec 435 of CrPC

According to Nalini, section 435 (1)(a) mandates the state to consult the Centre to remit or commute a sentence for an offence, which was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or by any other agency empowered to investigate an offence under any Central Act like the CBI. On February 1, the state ordered premature release of life convicts under Article 161 (Power of the Governor to grant pardons and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases) of the Constitution. 

But, Nalini was ineligible for the scheme, owing to a specific clause in the order that eligible life convicts should not come under section 435 of the CrPC. Since CBI had investigated the offence for which Nalini was convicted, she was rendered ineligible for premature release under the scheme, prompting her to approach the court assailing the validity of section 435. She contended in her plea, “When the object of premature release is reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners and when the convicts are released only based on good conduct in prison, which can be assessed only by the respective state government, the law mandating the state to consult the Centre would be irrational.” 

“Once convicts are confined in prisons, all of them are required to be treated equally and there cannot be two different treatments for single class of convicts,” she added.